However, the Red Sox would get only three runners on base over the next six innings: Aviles's two-out single in the fourth, Ellsbury's one-out single in the fifth, and Crawford's one-out double in the eighth. Boston failed to advance any of those three runners even one base. (After Crawford's double, Pedroia hit a shot to deep left center, but Granderson tracked it down one step from the wall.)

The Yankees snapped a 4-4 tie in the sixth. Casey McGehee and Granderson singled off Morales, ending his night. Jayson Nix's single off Clayton Mortensen scored McGehee.

The Boston Red Sox's ownership, manager, players and fans have all complained about the negative impact media coverage has had on the team. We at ESPN Boston are opting -- for one night, at least -- to tweak our regular coverage in advance of this weekend's series against the New York Yankees, so we used our imagination to take a positive outlook on the team's current plight. We are confident that your hometown heroes will respond to our exhortations and vanquish the Mighty Bombers. Fight hard, lads!

NEW YORK -- A weary but gallant group of Red Sox players, led by their plucky skipper Bobby Valentine, gathered in Baltimore's Penn Station late Thursday night to board the iron horse that will carry them to the Big Apple and a rematch with the Mighty Bombers of Gotham.

The Sox played their hearts out the past three nights against the Orioles, but Fate and Lady Luck dealt them a tough hand. Despite their best efforts -- which included a five-inning no-hitter (!!!) by Aaron Cook -- the Sox were able to claim just one hard-earned victory, steady Clay Buchholz spinning a beauty Thursday night in Camden Yards. Once again, the game's greatest fans were represented in large numbers, having made the arduous journey down the Jersey Turnpike to show their support for A-Gon, Pedey, Our Josh and all the Boys. ...

16 comments:

I could see something like that from a blog, but from a major media source it seems... asshole-y? I'm not sure the players are in the best position to articulate their feelings, but I do think they have a point. Is there another media (with the possible exception of New York's) that searches for dirt and pushes buttons like the media in Boston?

I agree with Goldfine, it's clever and amusing. Mainstream media is allowed to be clever, too.

The Boston media is viscious, but I wonder if we read local media from other cities, day in and day out, if we'd see something similar. Philadelphia? Chicago? These are not towns noted for their warmth and kindness. Or maybe Boston stands alone in its nastiness, I don't know.

I know this is not the popular opinion here, but I have to say, Gordon Edes annoys me these days. I wonder if his continued reputation as "one of the good ones" as far as Boston media goes is more due to his past reputation (as opposed to what he has done lately) and his continued real-life soothing and calm demeanor when posing his questions in press conferences. (He would be good as one of those guys that talks to bank robbers in hostage situations.)

But it seems like so much of his output this year has been just as bad as anything by Eric Wilbur or any other writer who is generally deemed "permissible" to hate. He doesn't write in a similarly provocative style as Wilbur or Mazz seem to do (that soothing hostage negotiator is there in his writing too) but that doesn't matter. All the same shit-kicking inferences, and all the same lack of evidence to back up those inferences are there, just in a more palatable package. These bombshells seem to have put out merely to rile people up and play on their already negative opinion of the players.

(I'm thinking specifically of his coverage of some of what Ortiz has said, where the reader--like the listener of a WEEI segment--was left with the impression that Ortiz ranted about stuff he never did. And also a couple more recent pieces that had to do with the whole "toxic" angle similar to the Ken Rosenthal's soap opera contributions. ["Pedroia didn't meet with Valentine on the mound that one time! Also he looked unhappy, so that proves Pedroia is trying to get Valentine fired! We couldn't have specifically asked Pedroia what that one on-camera incident was about like Rob Bradford eventually did to find out that Pedroia had actually swallowed his dip [regarding which he had a quick exchange with Ortiz] and that was the reason for the uncomfortable expression on his face. That might've actually resulted in an unexciting inference, after all! So we choose to believe that Pedroia, going against all logic and self-interest, wanted to make himself look bad by demonstratively dissing Bobby on a nationally televised game!"])

Edes's agenda has been blatant enough to where I've seen the occassional sarcastic comment from a fan (other than myself) such as, "Uh, oh, Morales didn't hug Lester when they walked by each other just now. Edes has his material for tomorrow."

I know this is not the popular opinion here, but I have to say, Gordon Edes annoys me these days. I wonder if his continued reputation as "one of the good ones" as far as Boston media goes is more due to his past reputation (as opposed to what he has done lately)

My sum total reading of mainstream sports media is whatever Allan posts on this blog. I don't read any of them. I just watch the games.

I obviously don't get the same vibe from Edes as you do, MH. He's not perfect, but he strikes a good balance between solid reporting and the anonymous source stuff. When Francona was let go, he did truly excellent work. He was about the only writer who was asking the questions that serious fans would ask if they were at the press conferences.

The problem this year is that there is little question that some (or a lot of) shit is going on. Is he supposed to write about none of it? If it is affecting the team and play on the field, then I think he does. If not - if it is stuff like the manager's failing marriage - then no, he does nothing.

I don't think you can take the players' statements at face value. There has been so much smoke from different angles this year, I don't think anyone can doubt there is some fire.

Is Gonzalez or Pedroia going to say, "Yes, I was extremely vocal about that asshole Valentine being a total disaster and I'd rather never play another inning for him?" Of course not. So we have to balance everything we have heard and then realize that everything that has been reported or claimed is maybe 15% of what has happened.

I guess I'd have to see actual examples of Edes's stuff to judge whether he has become as horrible as Wilbur or Mazz. (Though I am not asking you to do all the work to find them. Maybe as they come up in the future ...)

I don't follow the various writers enough to say whether or not I feel a particular one does a decent job. (Although, if I had to name a good name, it would be Rob Bradford. The only guy who seemed to write a level-headed assessment of Jon Lester's troubles other than, "He's tanking!") This year I have taken notice when someone seems to be stirring the pot (like when Eric Wilbur will write how so-and-so is worse than Hitler), so maybe I'm being a sucker and responding exactly how they want me to.

With Edes, I guess my point is that I feel at times he isn't merely reporting what's happening, but actually MAKING things happen. (I especially got this with his Ortiz coverage. He wrote an article that seemed to put words in Ortiz's mouth, sparking another melodrama.) I understand people's like for Edes, because until recently, I liked him too. It's not exactly that I hate him now, but there have definitely been recent times when I've read something of his and thought, "That's kind of cheap."

I DO think things behind the scenes aren't completely happy or "normal" this year. But I also believe that those things could've been reported on in a more even-handed manner. As a result, we'd get the impression that this year has been disappointing, and that there has been a lot of interesting things going on behind the scenes as a reflection of that. Not puppies and roses, but nothing too out of the norm that happens behind the scenes with baseball teams who drastically underperform or fail.

Such an impression would be a far cry (and I bet, more accurate) than the impression the fan base has now. (Players are revolting! Adrian Gonzalez who was previously criticized for not caring, only caring about money and being soulless; is now a histrionic traitor, trying to get Valentine fired! Youkilis tanked on purpose. Ortiz is faking an injury. Lester threw seeds at someone. Pedroia is the "snitch.")

I think it's the difference between feeling disappointment over real things (if the media weren't so pathetic and pandering) vs. frothing at the mouth about what might be going on between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes (what the media actually has given us).

By the way, if I could get political... Isn't it interesting how much the press wants to get at the bottom of controversy and dig up "the truth" ... but only when it's about things that don't really matter. (Baseball. Whether or not Ortiz is mad at Bobby Valentine. Dun-dun-dun! Whether or not Dick Cheney shot someone on a hunting trip. If some low-level politician once visited a prostitute. If John Travolta is gay.)

But when it comes to matters that involve deep, deep corruption in the most powerful institutions of the world (i.e. matters which are in the most need of having light thrown on them, for literally the good of the human race), our "free press" wants no part of it.

And to extend this further, it's kind of sad how most people/consumers only want to know about "controversies" if they involve such inconsequential things that they can laugh at on the Daily Show. Yet cover their ears to the possibility of corruption in areas that truly matter, areas which affect their own lives and their own futures far more than whether or not John Edwards was a playah.

Some people would say that the press is only playing to this tendency of the people and that's why they don't report on the things that really matter. But frankly, I think it's the other way around. I think the people are steered by the press in terms of what to think and what to care about. And certain topics are embedded in the public's mind as "unmentionable" or "not for polite society" while other topics--things they didn't give a moment's notice to before they were told to care about them--become the "hot topic" of the day *because* of the press.

I wrote a long message before the "political tangent" one clarifying my Edes stance. I guess it got lost in the ether somewhere. I only mention it in case my political tangent by itself sounded weird, like that's all I'd intended to say.

By the way, if I could get political... Isn't it interesting how much the press wants to get at the bottom of controversy and dig up "the truth" ... but only when it's about things that don't really matter.

Their stock-in-trade.

I'd add one note to what Allan said. It's all circuses. No bread, because if you lack bread it's your own fault. Stop being so lazy and get your own bread, don't expect my taxes to buy it for you.